Support

A cookie is a piece of data stored by your browser or device that helps websites like this one recognize return visitors. We use cookies to give you the best experience on BNA.com. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. If you continue browsing, you agree to this site’s use of cookies.

Marketing Services

Bloomberg Next marketing services allow clients to elevate their brands and extend their reach through our established and trusted expertise, enhanced with engaging event production, appealing design, and compelling messaging.

Nov. 4 — A federal district court has declined to block enforcement of a New York law that
allegedly prohibits voters from posting selfies taken in polling places on social
media (
Silberberg v. Bd. of Elections of N.Y.
, 2016 BL 367670, S.D.N.Y., No. 16-cv-8336 (PKC), 11/3/16
).

Three New York residents had alleged in an Oct. 26
complaint against the New York State Board of Elections that the law, which bans voters from
showing others their completed ballot, restricts their First Amendment rights.

“This action was commenced 13 days before the presidential election, even though the
statute has been on the books longer than anyone has been alive,” Judge Peter Kevin
Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said Nov.
3. “A last minute, judicially-imposed change in the protocol at 5,300 polling places
would be a recipe for delays and a disorderly election.”

The decision highlights the difference between laws specifically banning ballot selfies—which
other courts have held unconstitutional—from general bans on ballot exposure. It follows
an Oct. 28 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which stayed
an injunction against a Michigan law similar to New York's until after the election
(
Crookston v. Johnson, 6th Cir., No. 16-02490, 10/28/16
).

Long-Standing Statute

The three New York voters asked the court to enjoin the state's Board of Elections
from enforcing N.Y. Elec. Law §
17-130(10), which makes showing a completed ballot to another a misdemeanor. They
said that they wish to take “ballot selfies” when they vote on Nov. 8 and that the
law unconstitutionally restricts their free speech rights.

The court said the law is a reasonable means to ensure the integrity of the election
and ballot secrecy. Allowing voters to take ballot selfies at polling places could
cause unnecessary delays during the election process, the court said. Those taking
selfies may unintentionally capture ballots of other voters without their knowledge,
the court said.

The court distinguished the case from
Rideout v. Gardner, First. Cir., No. 15-02021, 9/28/16
, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled that a New Hampshire
law banning voters from posting images of their marked ballots on social media wasn't
narrowly tailored to the state's purported interest in preventing a potential problem
of voter coercion.

Rideout concerned a recently-enacted statute that specifically banned ballot selfies, the
Silberberg court said. “In contrast, the ban on showing another person a completed ballot has
been in place in New York for 126 years and does not target any particular technology,”
the court said.

The court also said that blocking enforcement of the law so close to the election
would cause confusion among poll workers and voters and “seriously disrupt”
the voting process. “Requiring Defendants to make substantial changes to election
policies at the eleventh hour is simply unreasonable, particularly given the fact
that the plaintiffs could have brought their challenge several months or years ago,”
the court said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Alexis Kramer in Washington at
akramer@bna.com

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Keith Perine at
kperine@bna.com

All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to books@bna.com.

Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)

Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).

This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to research@bna.com.

Put me on standing order

Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)